Mark 1:14-15

The Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God Announced

Mark 1:14-15  Jesus Proclaims the Kingdom

Mark gave no details of John (the Baptist’s) arrest at this stage of the narrative. We shall see in time that John was arrested and imprisoned by Herod (6:17-29). Herod ruled over Galilee and Perea (east of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea), but had no authority in Judaea. John presumably had moved, therefore, from Judaea into Galilee or Perea for him to come under the jurisdiction of Herod.

By situating Jesus’ mission in this way, Mark made clear that Jesus began his ministry against the ominous background of arbitrary political power and potential threat. To call to change and conversion would not always be seen as a politically neutral activity. 

Whatever Jesus had been doing after his baptism and before John’s arrest seemed to be of no interest to Mark. Nor did he tell why Jesus waited until John’s arrest before beginning his own ministry in Galilee. 

The response called for by both John and Jesus was change of attitude/conversion/repentance. 

Again and again in his narrative, Mark would show Jesus wrestling with the disciples’ inability or unwillingness to see differently, to hear what he was really saying, to think and to understand from a different perspective. Perhaps all genuine growth means a growing beyond what has been previously unquestioningly accepted.

Mark considered the message of Jesus to be in continuity with God’s past actions. The time had reached completion. What God had been leading up to for centuries was about to be realised in the mission of Jesus. Obviously, the present status quo was inadequate and imperfect.

Jesus claimed that the Kingdom of God was close at hand.

Kingdom in Palestine

The nation had first been formed from the descendants of the original twelve patriarchs. In Moses’ mind these twelve tribes had provided the basis of organisation. On their occupation of the Promised Land, the leaders of the twelve tribes had solemnly formed a confederacy, expressing their solidarity with each other in the common enterprise of nation building, pledging their support for each other, and committing themselves to common observance of the Covenant with God.

It was only two centuries later that the twelve tribes sought to be organised as a Kingdom. Attitudes differed whether the institution was contrary to or in line with God’s designs for the people. The prophet Samuel, who anointed the first kings, was of the view that the people’s wish for a king was an expression of their unwillingness to accept the Kingdom of God. The single Kingdom very quickly divided into two, and the original unity was lost. Prophets up to the time of the exile were generally scathing of the kings and their numerous infidelities.

The Northern Kingdom (Israel) was destroyed by Assyria late in the eighth century. Over a century later, the remaining Southern Kingdom (Judah) was eventually overthrown by Babylon and most of the population was later deported there. After about fifty years some of them returned from exile in Babylon. 

Early in the period after the stragglers’ return to Judaea, the prophet Zechariah looked to the future in terms of a reinstated legitimate monarchy through Zerubbabel. Nothing eventuated. Future hopes now lay more in the people seen as a whole. Maintaining the vision became increasingly the task of the priests and Levites, and prophets as critics of faithless kings and champions of God’s ways became redundant.

Three centuries after the return from exile a new dynasty was re-established by the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, which extended the nation’s boundaries once again northwards towards Galilee. It also interfered with the nomination of the high priest. The Herodian royal family succeeded the Hasmonean dynasty. 

At the time of Jesus' public ministry, Judaea to the south of the country was under direct Roman imperial rule. Galilee in the north, where Jesus was at work, was still controlled by Herod, by this time a puppet of the Roman conquerors. The Herodian dynasty lacked general support and credibility and was accepted simply as a factor of political inevitability. The high priesthood was available to the highest bidder.

John and Jesus were not the only ones casting critical eyes on the current situation of society. Judaism of that era contained a variety of different sects each offering their own ideas for reform. 

Some Jews longed for a monarchy according to the heart of God, a new “anointed” one, a restored king, a new Messiah or Christ. Of these, some (Zealots) saw this in concrete terms of reinstated political institutions, to be achieved, if necessary, by violent means. Essenes hoped for a political messiah and a legitimate priestly messiah also. Others (among whom were Pharisees) longed for observant hearts and minds. Not surprisingly there were also others (Sadducees, chief priests and aristocratic families) who were content with the way things were and whose political approach was one of appeasement and compromise. 

In Mark’s presentation Jesus radically questioned the whole idea of a Davidic messiah and strenuously rejected being himself identified with such a notion. Only in light of his crucifixion and resurrection did the early Church construe the role and meaning of Jesus in terms of Messiah or Christ, and only after radically reinterpreting the whole concept.

Speaking of the return of the exiles from Babylon to Judaea and Jerusalem, Second Isaiah had proclaimed:

Whatever about the shape of political and religious institutions, Jesus was primarily concerned with the primacy of establishing God’s vision for society. He saw this evidenced in the deeper meaning of the Torah and the prophets. To Jesus’ mind that deeper insight had been lost in the rigidity of much ritual, positive law and meaningless detail. Rather than liberating people and contributing a context in which they could grow and mature, such ritual and law tended instead to marginalise whole sections of the population and to oppress and dehumanise them.

What Did Jesus Intend by the Term: Kingdom of God?

Given that the term “Kingdom of God” will be used extensively in what follows, it is probably helpful to attempt to describe briefly what was involved in the idea. It has both a personal and a social dimension.

Personal vision. From the personal viewpoint it involves a sense of the dignity of the human person – one’s own dignity and that of everyone else. The source of that dignity is that every person originates in the mind and heart of God: each person is known and individually loved by God. Given that origin, persons in the Kingdom recognise their radical equality and essential solidarity with all other persons.

Social vision. On the basis of such solidarity, the sense of the Kingdom translates at the social level in structures of mutual respect and justice. Relationships within the Kingdom are regulated according to truth, justice, love and freedom. Even the non-human created world is seen as gift of God, to be respected and developed but not to be exploited.

Empowerment. Along with this vision of the world, entry into the Kingdom also involves an empowerment by God to respond accordingly: to seek truth, to work for justice, to love in practice, and always to respect responsible and free choice.

God’s Gift. Entry into the Kingdom is a God-given gift that for most people is received through faith. It is not so much seen as believed. The vision of faith involves at the same time a sense of hope. The two are inseparable. The hope in question is the hope, based on the word of God, that things can be different from what they are, that people can change for the better, and consequently that society can be shaped in ways that reflect the true values of God’s Kingdom.

At the same time those open to receive the Kingdom find themselves wanting, and even able, to act in ways that previously were beyond their capacity or even their desires. Essentially it is a gift from God, beyond the reach of their unaided efforts.

Human Response. Yet, while entry into the Kingdom is essentially God’s gift, it also calls for people’s active cooperation. That is why Jesus constantly called his listeners to deeper conversion.

Counter-culture. Given that the Kingdom does not appear “out of the blue” but is to be built out of current reality, out of what is real, commitment to the Kingdom will often involve a decidedly counter-cultural response. This was Jesus’ own experience. His calls for the Kingdom brought him into deep conflict with existing value systems and entrenched attitudes and structures. His stance became one of active resistance. But, consistent with his deep sense of the non-negotiability of love and of human freedom, his active resistance was always and necessarily non-violent. 

Source of the Vision. Jesus’ insight into the Kingdom was clearly connected with his sense of his own identity. According to Mark’s narrative of the post-baptismal experience, God had revealed to Jesus his unique dignity as “beloved son”. However the insight came about in practice, Jesus certainly knew that God loved him in his essential humanness, and he knew that he shared that same humanness with every other person. The God who loved him also loved every human person. On that rested his sense of the innate dignity of everyone, and the necessity that all people interact according to that dignity.

More than that, Jesus also experienced himself empowered by God’s Spirit to move from his former relative inactivity into a vigorous stance towards people and society. His empowerment led him into mission, his mission into potential conflict, conflict into temptation: he was “driven” by the Spirit into the wilderness, to engage with the “wild beasts” and to experience temptation. Yet in all this he knew himself encouraged and empowered by God’s “angels”.

Next >> Mark 1:16-20